Great conversation. The best part IMO was Patrick's statement about the importance of the Internet. Agree 100% and never heard anyone express that view so clearly.
"I have an ebullience and love for it in a way that people in our social class in the United States are aggressively socialized out of having ebullience and true love for anything. I think that the internet is the capital G, capital W, Great Work of the human race in a lot of respects, that it is magical. It is an encapsulation of the best things about our society that is also tremendously, instrumentally useful in making all the good things better and ameliorating all the problems over sufficiently long time scales.
It seems naturally to me that this is extremely important. This is extremely valuable, and it seems extremely underrated by almost everyone, including people who would consider themselves great fans of the internet but say, “Oh, I’m a great fan of the internet, but I’m a great fan of penicillin, too.
I think, in aggregate, the internet is obviously more important than penicillin by many orders of magnitude. Is it more important than medicine? I will bite that bullet. The internet is more important than medicine, the entire institution of medicine, from time immemorial to reasonable extrapolations of what we can do right now.
Is it more important than writing? You couldn’t have the internet without writing, so writing was very important to get to the development of the internet. That might be one of the most important things about writing, that writing got us to the internet. That sounds like a little bit of . . . I know people will take that full quote and say, “Oh, this crazy, nonintellectual person,” but I think that there is a reasonable case for it."
I'd take medicine over the internet. That would get us to at least a 1970s/1980s world.
Having zero medicine but the internet would be a very very different world, with people dying left and right from infections, broken bones would not be set crippling quite a few, accidents would be a lot more fatal (also because there would be no understanding of effects and causes of injuries), no wounds would ever be treated, etc etc. It would be a truly bizarre world where humans wouldn't care one bit about damage to and problems with their bodies (but would have highly optimized advertising systems).
Both sits in different level of the needs hierarchy[1]. First level that is most important is food, water, shelter etc., then second level is medicine, safety etc. Internet is one of the most important invention for the top 2 levels.
You’re mixing up morality of life with impact on humanity.
Medicine is great because it helps save lives (there is “non-medicine” which also achieves some good outcomes here). The internet, the instant exchange of information, is great because it magnifies humanity’s greatest power: mass collaboration. With the Internet, medicine could emerge. At least in the form of exchange of ideas and data, and subsequently spread its positive impact faster. The world’s greatest physician scientists working together.
Also I am guessing the ads bit was hyperbolic but like, common, Google is a verb for a reason. We’ve never had access to information like this before. And this is just focusing on something abstract like “information”.
This seems to imply that most people would die in their 40s from one cause or another before the 20th century, which is patently untrue. This is entirely from infant and childhood illnesses. If you made into grade school in the 1800s you were nearly as likely to live into your 70s as you are 200 years later.
> ‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
However, that is still a world with a lot medicine in there (just take simple things like sutures, inoculations, or setting broken bones). Very difficult to say what life expectancy for adults would have been with zero medicine in the world.
I am thinking quite practical: do I prefer the internet over dying from smallpox or appendicitis, for example?
The added benefit of the internet for mass collaboration isn't that much in the data... why hasn't productivity exploded upward? Why hasn't medical progress gone through the roof? Scientist collaborated long before the internet. Quite strong progress was made without it.
I am certain in some areas it has. but on the other hand in others it has damaged it- screentime is an awesome feature measuring "destroyed" productivity ;)
I think your view has a distorted importance of medicine because you have never lived a live without it. And with that I mean felt the emotions of people going through it, like when your mother dies because of childbirth when you are a kid, your siblings die, because of infections.
Like we have today in all the anti-vaccination guys esp. in better-to-do households that are responsible for measles outbreaks even though it was deemed extinct. People from areas where it was common to have all these kids' diseases, we are not afraid of are much more pro vaccinations...
I can remember a time without the internet and while I really think it is great in many ways, humanity could do fine without it...
Case in point: we got covid-19 vaccines so fast because the DNA sequence of the virus was posted for anyone to download by scientists working at ground zero. Much of the work was done before it was a global pandemic because of that sharing. Pair that with the work done on the mRNA vaccine for a previous coronavirus that didn't go far, and things weren't nearly as bad as they could have been.
This is a problem with trying to name One Most Important Thing. It's usually the synthesis of multiple innovations that makes the revolution.
Is there any evidence that the fact that anyone could look at the genome increased the speed of vaccine delivery measurably and not rather changes in processes for testing and roll-out? The genome data was only needed by a few actors for the vaccine.
Those few actors would have had to wait until it spread somewhere they have visibility in to before they could start a weeks-long sequencing process. It might have only added a month or two, but that's a lot of lives saved.
>> " Its genetic sequence was published on 11 January 2020, triggering an urgent international response to prepare for an outbreak and hasten the development of a preventive COVID-19 vaccine.[182][183][184]"
I haven't checked the citations, but I would expect an edit war if that were controversial.
Maybe a month, maybe not (and we don't have the counterfactual). The quote is not directly implying a speed-up from the publication on the internet vs publication in other forms. The sentence after your quote is pointing to the real speed-up:
"Since 2020, vaccine development has been expedited via unprecedented collaboration in the multinational pharmaceutical industry and between governments.[185]"
It is nonsensical as thought experiments go; we're comparing two things that can't be compared. But just for fun - if we existed in a world with no medicine and the internet, we'd be able to rediscover modern medicine extremely quickly. We might reasonably expect to get further than the current state of the art, in fact, because the initial wild west phase wouldn't be encumbered by overzealous safety regulation and we'd learn more before the legislatures of the world start shutting it down (especially since the baseline would be so horrific, they'd probably have tougher stomachs for some broken eggs while making omelettes).
We ran the reverse (medicine then internet) and it took a long time to get to the internet.
Why would we discover modern medicine quickly just because we have the internet? There is no reason to assume some of the concepts needed would just happen to spring up because of a cacophony of voices on the Internet (and a lot of collaborators would die while you work with them). It could even be bad for progress as all problems get broadcast, loud but wrong voices get huge amplification, etc.
The quote also is including all medicine, not just modern. Cold starting medicine then feels very hard.
Btw, early modern medicine was pretty much unencumbered by regulation - so there would be little change.
It isn't the number of voices; it is the speed and cost of setting up special interest communities. A bunch of health freaks with a penchant for experimentation would get together and start learning things. Not an overnight process but it'd be insanely quick compared to the sluggish speed of the last few millennia.
> Btw, early modern medicine was pretty much unencumbered by regulation - so there would be little change.
Not so; the early work was encumbered by rules against graverobbing. There were some famous advances made by .. someone who's name I do not recall, but he'd have been in trouble if people knew what he was up to.
Yes, there were some rules holding back anatomy to some extent at certain times, but really pretty much free for all in a lot of other areas.
Those health freaks would do the right things why? Why would other communities not seek to stop or block them from doing what they are doing (these experiments would have at times pretty dire consequences)? Why would there be zero rules for what those health freaks are doing? There is just no reason to assume this would just work out.
Why hasn't the internet brought insane advances in science if it is such a force multiplier for it?
> Those health freaks would do the right things why? Why would other communities not seek to stop or block them from doing what they are doing (these experiments would have at times pretty dire consequences)?
It's research and rediscovering a field. Of course they'd get a bunch of stuff wrong. That is how medical research works; people try things that don't work all the time.
And we're imaging a world with presumably no antibiotics. Nobody cares if people are accidentally killing themselves, death lurks behind every shrub.
> Why hasn't the internet brought insane advances in science if it is such a force multiplier for it?
... have I dropped into an alternate universe? The rate of scientific progress is unreal right now. We're progressing at a pace that is unparalleled in human history at a global scale. There is even a risk we'll obsolete the human mind this decade. Something has been force-multiplying scientific progress.
I suppose I should say technological progress rather than scientific, technically science has been slowing down since they've discovered most things. Maybe that was the point of confusion here. But the rate of knowledge dissemination is resulting in massive quality of life improvements that mean outcomes on the ground are improving in unreal ways. Look at the dissemination of things like iPhones for example.
Like in the past people didn't care about things like dissecting corpses?
What technical and scientific progress at unreal rates? The amount of information and data increased, but a lot of other things are highly incremental at best. If the progress is so great, why hasn't productivity increased a lot or life expectancy? Parallel universe indeed.
The idea that we discovered most things has quite a lot of hubris in it, given the vast sways of things we only have a poor grasp on.
Not sure the iPhone is an example of improved quality of life as the effect varies quite a lot between use cases.
science was there long before the internet, and if history teaches us one thing it is, that gaining fundamental knowledge takes time- often generations (where one generation must die for new ideas to spread)
so no, the internet may be good for lots of things, but it would by no means replace the groundwork required over centuries to come up with modern medicine...
Most Doctors look stuff up on the Internet from what I’ve seen, so I’m not sure you can remove one from the other. You can for sure have two Great Works.
All of the resources needed for day to day medicine will fit on a small thumb drive (so any phone) and can be update with just a few hundred megabytes per month (including media). It’s nice the internet makes things easier to get to, but it’s not nearly as critical as implied.
How much has it improved? Where has it improved? If the internet were not there, would that improvement not have happened? Modern medicine definitely existed well before the internet, so the internet wasn't necessary for that to exist.
Just look at how treatment during a pandemic was communicated and evolved in realtime, the whole way we do science today interacts with learning from many people in a much faster and more efficient way.
Luckily these sort of nonsense one or the other positions don’t work in the real world. Clearly it would be much easier to recreate modern medicine with the Internet available than it would be to recreate the Internet if we just had medicine.
Faster, yes, more efficient - not sure and very difficult to measure. We also got a lot more diversity and resistance to measures.
I find the view that recreating modern medicine being clearly easy with the internet dubious. Even more, we did create the internet while having medicine before, not the other way around. Without modern medicine we might not have any internet to start with as the struggle with human diseases and illness might have led to very different time attribution of efforts.
Also, the quote is for all of medicine, not just modern.
sure, but to such a fundamental amount? or was it IT- the internet is not IT, super computers and simulations, databases and so are not the internet...
I like google but google is only as good as the stuff out there, and then finding useful content (that is not popular) is hard, and getting even harder the more content is produced.
People have lived happy lives without the Internet for millennia, in fact I've lived a portion of my life without the Internet and I can remember the "good old days". Life with the Internet is very cool, but it was pretty cool also before it. I won't say that our lives were better before the Internet, but such argument can be made - imagine a world without X, Facebook, TikTok and the scourge of social media; for many people that was a better, slightly simpler world.
Medicine, on the other hand, was responsible for removing an immeasurable amount of pain and suffering from humanity, including having our loved ones (and ourselves) around for much longer. I find hard to believe people would give back antibiotics for anything we have from the post-Internet revolution.
Without medicine, I'd probably have died of a severe throat infection while hospitalized as a pre-internet teenager.
Without the internet, I'd have vastly reduced choice in entertainment.
I'll take the medicine. By many orders of magnitude.
Now if we focus on "sufficiently long time scales" perhaps the internet is going to be the human invention that enables us to get where we need to be. But that's a guess. Perhaps I'm dim but I don't see how the internet is obviously more important than penicillin by orders of magnitude.
It's great that medicine managed to develop despite the Internet not being available at the time. But the next generation of medicine will only exist because of the Internet, and it will be orders of magnitude more advanced.
In the long term, people will look back and say that although medicine did develop first, it only really got serious traction when the Internet and related technologies appeared.
> Without the internet, I'd have vastly reduced choice in entertainment.
This is facetious. Do you really believe that current medical care does not benefit from the Internet at all; that it's only used for entertainment?
Anesthesia, antibiotics, or vaccinations - to take some examples - are all not "serious traction" as far as medicine is concerned? What part of medicine will be get serious traction from the internet?
One could argue that the development of any technology, including medicine, is augmented by the internet allowing people to instantaneously pool knowledge and skills across the entire world. There are obvious benefits to that - the rates of technological development seen since the invention of telephone and fast transportation are sky-high, compared to pretty much the rest of known human history, so it stands to reason that the internet will do the same but even better. Would have we seen a COVID vaccine (or rather, multiple vaccines) in a matter of mere months, without the internet? Probably not - it took decades to get a vaccine for influenza.
Looking back, I don't think we'll look at it like "the internet allowed us to create technology X and Y", but rather "the internet turned our tech development rates, across the board, into hockey sticks steeper than we'd ever seen before".
So far we don't see that hockey stick from the internet in medicine or even most technologies.
I doubt that the Covid vaccine was developed so quickly because of the internet. The internet might have shaved a little bit time off, but it wasn't instrumental in the vaccine developement as far as I understand it. The development was a huge effort between governments, corporations, and science sitting atop decades of research. Did it make certain communications easier - for sure, but I struggle to see that as anywhere as big as changed processes in testing and roll-out.
Decades of research that was catalogued, indexed, and shared via the internet. We're talking about drastically cutting down on time people the world over would be collectively spending rediscovering the same things. Because of peer review, we can cut down on time wasted pursing things that are flawed.
HN just recently followed the peer review process of LK-99 in basically real-time across the world. The results might seem trivial in hindsight, but it took leading experts the world over a bit of time to pin down and explain what was really being obversed. It probably saved the original authors years of work trying to refine and chase LK-99.
History has shown the time and again, every advancement in communication has been a boon to human progress. Printing press, telegraph, transalantic//transcontinental telegraph cables, telephone, internet...
There's plenty of papers posted here, and a lot of the break through papers are usually made on the shoulders of giants - connecting break throughs in seemingly disconnected disciplines/sub disciplines. HN sees this most frequently in maths papers, and the story is made easily digest able in breakdowns from quanta magazine.
The internet has drastically accelerated the rate of human progress, and now we're on the cusp of removing the language barrier with automatic machine transmission.
I don't doubt the usefulness of the internet but where is the evidence of the "drastically accelerated rate of human progress"? Or rather what data is that translating into? Productivity growth it isn't. Life expectancy it isn't. Real wages it isn't necessarily. GDP growth it isn't really, either.
It'll certainly depend on your yardstick, I agree.
Scientically, technologically, we've seen more progress in under a century than we've seen in millennia. It's maybe easy to hand wave that off on advances in machine computation (computers), but computers are a globally coordinated effort. Foundaries, manufacturing techniques, CS research, etc are coordinated and advanced globally because of the internet.
M-RNA vaccines are the cummulation of a decades of advances. Genetic sequencing was a major advancement, but actually being able to make sense of it and do something with that information, and then to go encode your own M-RNA and trick the body into producing parts of the virus in order to teach it about a virus it's never actually seen is soo far removed vaccines of old, which was basically repeated exposure to a similar, weaker virus.
Could we have gotten here without the internet? Maybe? It's hard to tell, because the road to M-RNA vaccines was paved by decades of global coordination in the fields of CSE, virology, material science, chemistry, physics, etc etc.
And this ignores everything that goes into manufacturing this at scale, coordinating availability/priority, etc.
It's probably easier to look backwards and see what was lost and rediscovered. Feats of architectural engineering, Roman concrete, etc history is full of major advances being independently discovered and lost due to the inability to share, search, and archive information at scale
My problem is that it seems to largely feature on the level of anecdata, but not make it beyond that. It is more a hypothesis like: the rather moderate aggregate progress wouldn't have happened without the internet - but how to show that?
People managed huge coordination efforts before the internet (just take the US in WWII with half the GDP dedicated to war efforts). So claims about the effect of the internet from better coordination there need a lot to substantiate them.
I talked to a guy in vaccine research after the pandemic and asked him why it went was produced so fast. He said that basically we'd already done years of RNA vaccine research but it hadn't been applied yet. We had the solution already at hand, so we got a vaccine quickly. I don't think the Internet was a big factor in why we got it so quickly. (It may or may not have been a factor in why we had the RNA vaccine ready to go at that point in time.)
I mean, great point, but the internet is more than entertainment, in the way that electricity and light is more than movies.
Many people may use a significant portion of their electricity and lights on watching... whatever. But the statistical majority of use cases does not define the medium.
Maybe a less controversial way to say it is "global communication is more important than medicine," but I still like the way patio11 said it.
It's interesting; most of Patrick's writing I find unnecessarily tedious to parse, regardless of substance of content. This one really clicked and easily is one of my favorite CwT episodes full of insightful answers.
As just another person on the internet: I like Patrick's style, and I like that he _has_ a distinctive style when so much writing is bland drab bullets. At worst it can be ... oblique ... in places, but some strikes are an inevitable consequence of taking swings.
I often wondered if Patrick uses unnecessarily convoluted sentences, or if he is simply careful about using the proper terminology, and my English is just not good enough to follow him like a native speaker would.
Some people do not enjoy my writing style. That is fine; it’s a big Internet and there are writers with many styles on it. Some people think my style is poorly considered or unnecessary. I invite them to attempt writing a few million words. It will give one a very considered view on one’s own style.
I have spent half my life working in a foreign-to-me language and so I feel for non-native speakers who try to read my writing. That said, all choices in life have trade-offs. Many publications in the U.S. target a fifth to eighth grade reading level. You likely would have little difficulty reading those publications, much like I have comparatively little difficulty reading Japanese aimed at 5th graders. However, people rarely associate those publications with dense, insightful, textured prose on complicated technical and interdisciplinary subjects. (If some HNers do, awesome; stuff you’ll love is available at the obvious places on the Internet.)
I love your writing. I believe the reason some people do not is because you are very precise, which means using more words. As you know, people are impatient and prefer less words unless they can see clearly how more words were necessary.
In case you needed any encouragement, here's some: Keep going, you're amazing!
> I invite them to attempt writing a few million words. It will give one a very considered view on one’s own style.
That it will! I recently went from [not writing many documents] to [writing a ton of documents], and it turbocharged my reflecting-on-style background process.
Thanks again for your documents over the decades!
...and as a quote in HPMOR put it:
> Apparently people who were in books actually sounded like a book when they talked.
That's the way I try to write, with middling results; I'm nowhere nearly as gifted as you are (which drives me a little nuts). I don't know if it's the way Patrick tries to write. But I do know that Patrick's writing is extraordinarily successful. It's stylistically not to your liking, you've made very clear, but it's effective at communicating the ideas he's looking to communicate, and, especially with Bits About Money, has found a large and receptive audience.
The concision you're looking for in his work is one mark of successful writing, but not the only one. You can compare his writing to that of, say, the Rationalists, who have never found a narrative they were unable to pulverize into a half-finished wiki page. There's research, and the choice of which details to make prominent. B.A.M. succeeds in part because it tells interesting stories. That's good writing, regardless of stylistic choices.
I think you're being too glib. This could have been a much more interesting discussion.
The guy came here and said, people can't handle my writing because it's so dense and textured; let them go ahead and try to write these millions of words. I thought that was obnoxious, but since the technology does not yet exist to give people swirlies over the internet, I adapt to the constraints of the medium.
I really don't care about the personal dynamics here. We are all three of us polarizing figures to substantial numbers of people on the Internet.
What bugs me is the blithe assertion about the quality of his writing, because like it's just demonstrably false that he writes badly. He has different writing goals, different subject matter, a different audience, and a very different style. It's easy to see how any or all of those things might not be your cup of tea. But his writing is effective, which is really the first and most important thing you want to ask for from what he's trying to accomplish. Just as important (to me, nerding out about this) I don't think he'd be more effective if he tried to write more like you do.
I'm sorry, but he writes badly! Like the guy at the head of the thread said, it's painful trying to parse his sentences, and that's not because the material is inherently difficult (compare Matt Levine, who can make similar subject matter read like Wodehouse).
The context of this subthread is a non-native speaker asking if the fault here lies with the writer or the reader, and I gave my honest opinion. Arguments about effectiveness and success are neither here nor there; don't make me drag Kenny G into this.
It is wild to me that you think that, because he has a following that adores his writing, including among professional writers. I'm not trying to persuade you at this point, but I genuinely would like a better understanding of how you think about this stuff.
This is not about sticking up for Patrick, who can stick up himself just fine (he has more readers than either of us). It's about my understanding of what "good writing" is.
I'd enjoy a prix fixe meal at the French Laundry more than I would a burger on an aircraft carrier, but a lot of people wouldn't agree with me about that!
Funny enough the common wisdom in the Navy is that you eat much better on smallboys (destroyers, frigates, etc.) than on a carrier.
I knew a guy whose brother worked as a chef on the Charles de Gaulle (France's only aircraft carrier), and I bet the cooking there was incredible. The thing probably has a dedicated wine deck.
There's a hidden advantage to writing like this. It comes up when, e.g., you're communicating on a controversial topic in a forum like Twitter with a history of forming mobs against folks who communicate on controversial topics.
Suppose an angry reader is looking for a reason to form a mob against you. If you write in simple sentences, that makes it easy for the angry reader to process your statements and go after them. But if your sentences are more complicated, the angry reader needs to decode them logically before they can justify their anger. Angry people tend to be poor at logic. So when they run into this kind of writing, they often get bored before they have a chance to get outraged. You get your message across, and the angry reader moves on to the next tweet in their feed. Everybody wins.
This doesn't work 100% of the time. But if you do it right, it cuts down on a lot of negative virality. I'm not saying this is or isn't Patrick's intentional strategy. I have no idea. It's just one among many consequences of this communication style.
I wish this were true but frankly, at least on most social media sites, people will happily move forward with any kind of mob justice irrespective of the truth or one’s writing style.
I do think that precision in writing is useful for defending one’s prior claims (and for other reasons!) but I think that’s orthogonal to defending one’s self from mass action on today’s internet.
To me, he writes like a precursor of how most of the folks on LessWrong write. I think it's a case of convergent nerd evolution.
Someone else I put in this group is CGP Grey, the YouTuber, specifically his early podcast episodes. That guy's ideas changed my life in a lot of ways as a teenager in ways I think I can't fully describe today.
I was wondering the same lately. It is interesting to compare his tweets to pg's tweets which are the complete opposite: patio11's tweets feel like oddly specific and extremely hard to parse while pg's tweets seem very generic and easy to parse yet insightful. Honestly the only reason I follow patio11 is that his style and content is so different from other people I follow that I feel I need this diversification.
pg explicitly tries to write very simply, which I've definitely appreciated and tried to learn from. However, I think Patrick's unambiguous style is also interesting in its own way, and he is writing very specifically about how (human) systems operate at a level which very very few people write. Others make generic statements like "the Post Office usually delivers mail on Sundays", while he might say "the Post Office has an obligation to deliver mail on Sundays unless one of several [adjective] scenarios occurs, which tends to happen once every [adjective] weeks". I think the former is easier to read but doesn't convey as much specific information.
> I often wondered if Patrick uses unnecessarily convoluted sentences
One of my weird qualifications is evaluating text complexity. Most of Patrick’s writing is simply highly accurate and precise erudite language. Frankly, compared to other writers at a comparable level of erudition, his writing is downright economical rather than convoluted.
His texts tend to be very information dense in a way that I’m not sure all readers appreciate or value.
>. or if he is simply careful about using the proper terminology
Yep. All that.
> and my English is just not good enough to follow him like a native speaker would.
Probably (not sure about your English proficiency level), but that’s not a knock on your English.
Note that Patrick’s writing is very high level, and I think many native speakers don’t read his texts with a high degree of fluency. Specifically, they simply don’t make it through the text, they don’t understand what he wrote, or they are not able to identify the preciseness and accuracy (and sometimes artfulness) with which he communicates his ideas.
On a personal level, I am a big fan of his writing — it’s just a delight to read material on a complex topic with a high degree of confidence that what he says is extremely accurate.
Another author who I think writes at a high level is Scott Alexander of slatestarcodex and astralcodexten (or wherever he writes these days) — very high brow style on complex topics. It’s not for everyone. Fwiw, I’ve had to read (and reread) some of Scott Alexander’s pieces in small chunks with breaks to process what I had read — sometimes it’s just oozing with intellectual goodness.
For someone who writes in finance in a more casual style, I recommend Matt Levine and his newsletter Money Stuff (free).
I had never read Patrick McKenzie's writing before, but the linked article contains a link to a popular article of his from 2012[1], which I read, and his substack[2], a few articles of which I skimmed as well.
The salary negotiation article really doesn't come off as that formal and high level, to me; the tone is rather casual, although it requires knowledge of some advanced vocabulary like "fungible" and "administrativia". I'm not saying this to brag about my reading level; I'm genuinely a bit confused.
I had been expecting something like the preface from the second edition of Jane Eyre[3].
1. Some topics are easier to write about than others — certain types of complexity will not add to the quality of communication. I agree that the salary negotiation article of Patrick’s isn’t particularly complex.
2. High level texts don’t have to be inaccessible. One of the best high level texts that I’ve seen was a Turkish article that ostensibly looked like a sports story on football/soccer but was actually very high level political commentary. Some of the stuff that African story tellers do is absolutely mind-boggling in its ability to communicate on multiple levels.
3. The salary negotiation article may be simple for you and for many folks on HN, but I can’t tell you how many people I’ve sent this article to (with purpose) who didn’t even finish reading it. Specifically, I think the structure is longer and more involved than some folks like. Some of the (important, imho) topics also can put people to sleep — fully-loaded salary costs comes to mind.
4. I’m not sure what the view on the salary negotiation article is now, but it was an eye opener to many people when it was written. The way salaries are decided in tech companies is quite a bit different now than it was in 2012, and I think this article played at least a small part in that cultural change.
5. Even in an article on a relatively mundane topic like salary negotiation, Patrick comes up with gems like this: “If you have a kid brother who majored in Flemish Dance and got a modest full-time job at a non-profit, his fully-loaded cost is still probably $4,000 a month or more.” There is a lot of cultural load in that one. It might be easy for HN folks to parse it, but it’s not that easy for large swathes of the population, especially if non-native populations are included.
If I run into any of Patrick’s writing that showcases his some of his higher level stuff over the next 24 hours, I will reply here. It’s a busy day, so I’m not sure I will have the time.
As a fun side thing, here is a high-level text from Obama when Seinfeld ask him what sport politics is most like:
“It’s probably most like football. A lot of players. A lot of specialization. A lot of hitting. A lot of attrition. But then every once in awhile, you’ll see an opening, you hit the line, you get one yard, you try a play, you get sacked, now it’s like, third and 15… you have to punt a lot. But every once in a while, you see a hole, and then there’s open field.”
A reasonable comprehension question to ask on a text like this would be something like “Based on Obama’s comment, what are some specific occurrences in politics that might have conceptual parallels in [American] football?”I assure you that this passage is basically like Klingon to non-native speakers who have not immersed themselves in American culture.
You make some good points. I definitely understand where a non-native speaker would have trouble following American cultural references and phrasings; I was more confused by the people saying that they're also native speakers, but that following McKenzie's writing is still difficult for them.
> 3. The salary negotiation article may be simple for you and for many folks on HN, but I can’t tell you how many people I’ve sent this article to (with purpose) who didn’t even finish reading it. Specifically, I think the structure is longer and more involved than some folks like. Some of the (important, imho) topics also can put people to sleep — fully-loaded salary costs comes to mind.
This is also a good point. I think it's because a lot of people, even college-educated people, just don't read much, so most won't read a very long article, even if it's written in a casual tone, particularly if it's boring. Partly, I believe that reading has to be practiced and maintained, similar to maintaining a muscle. If you don't read articles regularly, reading a long one will be very mentally taxing. Even if you do, if an article is longer than what you're used to, you'll feel mentally tired after you're done. And it's harder to read long articles when they're about a bit of an unexciting topic, like salary negotiation.
I've come to the same conclusion as you. I sometimes find it very hard to parse, but given all the praise he gets from very smart individuals, I put it down to not being native.
As much as his interview style annoys me, I think Tyler is the perfect antidote to people that write this way. It forces them to clarify their key thoughts and convey them in a few sentences. A blog doesn't do that.
Tyler's method of interviewing was pretty unique (this is the first podcast of his I have heard, though I've listened to him being interviewed before). Very rapid fire, jumping from topic to topic, not a lot of thematic linking.
Cowen probably puts in more research than any other interviewer. His style is pretty unique, but the interviews never become rambly and the guests get to showcase much more range.
Agree. I was a little turned off by TC's style when I first discovered his podcast, but quickly picked up the fact that the guy has done his research and there's a method to the seeming 'madness'. The result is a conversation with extremely high signal. I've been listening to him for years.
The best researched interviewer is likely Nardwuar, though he also has the ADD style. I wonder if the reason is to show off how much the interviewer knows.
That was definitely the vibe I got from Tyler's interview with David Bentley Hart, although it backfired because Tyler didn't seem to know much about the topics at all...
Love econtalk, but I find Russ's interview style more engaging. He definitely does his research and bends over backwards to explore viewpoints different from his own, but it's much more conversational, rather than rapid fire.
If you just weren't familiar with HN's rules and don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow them in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If I were patio11 I'd use the second sentence as my tongue-in-cheek twitter bio line and wear it as a badge of honor:)
Given enough neuroticism, preciseness driven by fear of being misunderstood or being incorrect may be indistinguishable from pseudointellectualism. I personally would not reach for "attention seeker" when someone's actions tend to be helpful even when no one is looking (or reading).
Crossing into personal attack like this is seriously not ok. Moreover, we've had to ask you not to do this on more than one occasion in the past. Fortunately that was a long time ago. Please don't do this again.
Nobody ever, ever thought he was making Levels cash from Bingo Card Creator. He published his number every year! I flagged this comment for obvious reasons, but I can't not speak up about this inane claim.
He doesn't have a "nerdcore obsession with Japan", either; he lived there for like 20 years.
"I have an ebullience and love for it in a way that people in our social class in the United States are aggressively socialized out of having ebullience and true love for anything. I think that the internet is the capital G, capital W, Great Work of the human race in a lot of respects, that it is magical. It is an encapsulation of the best things about our society that is also tremendously, instrumentally useful in making all the good things better and ameliorating all the problems over sufficiently long time scales.
It seems naturally to me that this is extremely important. This is extremely valuable, and it seems extremely underrated by almost everyone, including people who would consider themselves great fans of the internet but say, “Oh, I’m a great fan of the internet, but I’m a great fan of penicillin, too.
I think, in aggregate, the internet is obviously more important than penicillin by many orders of magnitude. Is it more important than medicine? I will bite that bullet. The internet is more important than medicine, the entire institution of medicine, from time immemorial to reasonable extrapolations of what we can do right now. Is it more important than writing? You couldn’t have the internet without writing, so writing was very important to get to the development of the internet. That might be one of the most important things about writing, that writing got us to the internet. That sounds like a little bit of . . . I know people will take that full quote and say, “Oh, this crazy, nonintellectual person,” but I think that there is a reasonable case for it."